Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Milne for her approach to this, which will hopefully shorten the time taken to deal with these amendments. In my heart I was hoping for a while that the Labor Party and the Greens might have a huge argument as to the difference between five and 14 days, but then common sense prevailed and I thought, ‘It will take up a lot of the chamber’s time so hopefully they will not,’ and I thank them that they did not. In announcing Mr Callinan’s appointment, the minister made it clear that the findings of the inquiry will be made public. So there is no argument or discussion to be had in relation to the findings being made public; that will occur. Mr Callinan himself has indicated his preference to conduct as many of his hearings in public as possible.

The government does not, however, support a legislative requirement that the report be tabled in parliament, and for one very important reason—and that is, it could actually narrow the scope of what Mr Callinan can include in his report. I note Senator Milne’s reference to the Carter royal commission. Whilst I have a clear memory of it, my memory does not extend to the legislation empowering that commission and whether it included a specific clause in relation to a period in which the royal commission report had to be tabled. My advice is that not a single royal commission set up has had such a time limitation put on it in relation to reporting. The reason is that the report might contain, for example, personal information or commercially sensitive material that could not be made public without unfairly disadvantaging individuals involved in the inquiry. If required to table his report, Mr Callinan would effectively be limited to including only information that could be made public.

As I said before, it has never been a legislative requirement that reports of royal commissions be tabled—and with good reason. For example, with the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, the government was able to act on the commissioner’s recommendation that one volume of his report remain confidential as it might unfairly prejudice future criminal prosecutions. Of course, if that occurs, Mr Callinan may well provide his report in two volumes—one that can be made public and which contains findings, and another that cannot be made public, or at least not for quite some time.

Accordingly, without knowing the exact nature of Mr Callinan’s report, it would be inappropriate to include a legislative requirement that the report be tabled. Nevertheless, the government remains fully committed to making the findings of the report public, as Minister McGauran has indicated. Senator O’Brien indicated that it was really only an issue of public policy protocols and other matters. There is the possibility that charges may arise. I have been advised, for example, that if somebody has imported an animal in contravention of the Quarantine Act then that person may be prosecuted under section 67 of the Quarantine Act. If somebody has provided false or misleading information to the Commonwealth, that person may be prosecuted under part 7.4 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. As I understand it, part of the procedure includes, for example, the signing of statutory declarations. So if somebody were to have signed a false statutory declaration in relation to this issue, clearly that is a matter that could lead to prosecution as well.

For those reasons, and because it is a precedent which has been followed by every single royal commission that has been established, the government will oppose the amendment in relation to tabling, whilst absolutely guaranteeing that the findings will be made public and that whatever can be made public of the report will be made public as expeditiously as possible.